None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

The Argument Against Infinite Descent

A1) Creation is corrupt
A2) A "good" creator only creates redeemable creation.
A3) God only creates "good" creators

By "redeemable" we assert there necessarily exists a time t2 after the point of frst corruption at t1 whereby all creation after t2 is eternally incorruptible. A good creator must not partway redeem a creation, else it is not redeemed. (t2 could not be necessary if it failed at some point beyond t2.)

If a creation is irredeemable, then a creator is not good, and therefore either not created by God, or God is imperfect if he created the creator.

If there is a corrupted creation then we may assume that it was created by a good or bad creator. If God is perfect, either that creation was created by an imperfect being that God did not create, or the creation itself is being redeemed by it's creator. If an imperfect being created the world and in the separate case that it is unable to be redeemed by him, (for a redeemed world does not require good creator as yet) we may deduce that the "bad" creator of that world requires redemption. (And also his creation as a poor work also.)

Then we may define the good creator as one whom is able to redeem His own work with no assistance, whether He be perfect or not.

Infinite descent is then the result that there are no perfect creators in agreement with the redemption of creation as acheived by lesser creators in the chain. (Given of course, a possibly infinite chain of descent from abstract perfection to our "creator".)

There must be a imperfect creator in the chain whose creators more perfect than He disagree with a possibly infinite lower section of the chain down to the creator that is unable to redeem his work to their satisfaction.

This requires that none of the perfect creators in the upper "half" of the chain that agree created those in the lower half of the chain. This, is a contradiction on the argument of infinite descent, and we approach it below.

The creators in the bottom of the chain require redemption by those that created them, being unable to create a good creator to redeem the creation. Those at the top of the chain have created creators able to redeem their creations. Therefore if there is a creator whom can redeem the creation, He must at the very least be the perfect being at the position one above the division in the chain. We will call this individual X.

Then X does not agree with all those in the lower portion of the chain. They, are in agreement with the world's creator that it is yet to be redeemed (and is without justification): so, we will go to the bottom of the chain to the "bad" creator. We will call this individual "G".

Clearly if X redeems G then X must redeem the work of G else there is no solution.

G, is clearly not a good creator unless the work is redeemed, and done so by G, not by X. We consider X more perfect than G, moving to the divison in the chain we require that those above and including X have a solution, and those below and including G do not have a suitable solution. The solution is to everyone's satisfaction, because X is more perfect than G.

Now, G may not be created by a perfect creator, whereas X is a "good" creator. X can or has redeemed His own work. If there is indeed a chain there must be a chain so constructed that as we ascend the chain we ascend in an increasing set of creative works, so that to move higher up the chain is to encompass the creation of all from G's creation upwards through that of X to move to the top of the chain, wherein the being at the top has created and redeemed all creation. For interfering with G's work is to make it the work of X and all above in the chain. Once X interferes, He is at work and His own work is redeemed (and so by choice).

Yet, such a being at the top must be considered as either perfect God, or X, or G. There is one work requiring redemption - and that is the work of G perfected by some X with a solution to redeem the chain upwards to perfection.

We know that if the chain exists it is corrupt if and only if it can not be redeemed by any creator, because as we ascend the chain we arrive at a solution to the corruption. Likewise in interfering with G's creation the perfection of the upper portion of the chain is at stake, not the lower.

We simply make a "join" (a common element with the top - being perfect) in the chain so that a perfect solution from the top arrives at "X", and state that imperfect creators of irredeemable creations must therefore have no solution even by the perfect. It is implausible that there be no solution that travels from the top of the chain down and stymies the upper part - because at the top there is total perfection.

Yet if a creation is corrupt and irredeemable (with evil) it must therefore not be in the lower half of the chain (a contradiction), even though higher up, all creation is redeemable or already redeemed. Lower down, creation is posited as not redeemed. Then there can be nothing perfect at the top encompassing the bottom, or else all would be redeemed..

If perfection is at the top of the chain there is in some sense no final t2 (as yet) which afterwards permits no evil. This is either completed by G using the solution of X present in the join or it is the work of the top of the chain. Respectively, both will ensure that t2 is the same instant once the chain is redeemed for all in the chain from X upwards. This is a contradiction that G is a "good" creator, as every creator from one below X downward is redeemed by the solution in X at the same instant - the making of the join.

Therefore G is perfect as X (and therefore the top of the chain) and is redeeming His own work in coincidence with the most High at the same t2, or there was no "evil" in the creation and it was solved already. It is a simple logical contradiction: If a world can not be redeemed at all (or appears as such), its creator is perfect, and must be the most high. (The work is not impossible, may be redeemed and is being so redeemed perfectly by the greatest of creators.)

At the top of the chain, God supposedly created only good creators, but God is then necessary to justify all creation (as an act) as justifiable, (and to ensure that creation is when it is corrupt, totally soluble.)

Only good creators may be logically considered to create on their own, "bad" creators appear to have done so from God by proxy. (Because God is at the top of the chain.) If there are truly any bad creators, it is the responsibility of the upper part of the chain to apply the solution to the very top of the chain through a join down to the problem.

The solution is then that if any creation is corrupt it is being redeemed and perfectly so by the most high. If creation itself were not redeemed, it would be like hell in here!

Now, the solution delivered to G through X from the top of the chain is such that all creation in the largest "possible set" is redeemable or else it is not contained in the chain. I.e.There is no set in the chain that belongs to the set of irredeemable creation by contradiction. If God is a "good" creator, He has the solution, If God can not redeem His creation, there is no solution, because God, is always top of the chain.

Then if there is no solution at the top of the chain, it is simply a fact that no solution is required at the bottom. (Such things would be necessary)

So, the chain is truthfully in agreement with respect to one thing which we contradicted upon: It must be false that creation is subject to the will of others than its creator. We arrived at the contradiction on simply assuming that the creator's solution is irredeemable or unsatisfactory to greater perfection. Clearly, as a creator from the bottom to the top, the chain is then in perfect agreement with every solution, and we may simply state that to all intents and purposes, G is perfect God. Appeals above God's own right to sovereignty are meaningless

The alternative is that God creates all by Himself and there are no other creators. Then the chain is of length one, and we need no such argument, as the chain is still intact. We began with a definition that a creation must be redeemed for all t> t2. We could either ascend unions of different chains - or we could state that since every creator is then "good" and able to judge His own work with complete agreement in the chain, every creator's work is logically redeemable with no evil permitted after t2 (a contradiction for a positive act for any creator). God Most High, has justified creation enough. Through his own perfection, the logic or intent is as good as a promise: there will be no further corruption after t2 when it arrives. (Especially if He be the only creator!)


Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page


'